gtt wrote:I think the Wii U's purpose is to show that following the mobile/tablet market is asinine for dedicated gaming companies. But I doubt they'd actually come out and say that their investors are morons.

yea. Nintendo chased a fad from 2010 and it burned them badly.[/quote]

Yes. It couldn't possibly be that they were implementing their OWN 2004 "fad" with dual-screen/touch screen functionality added to a home console.

Also featured at: http://thepunkeffect.comFollow along on Twitter: @RetroRevelationAnd Tumblr: retrorevelations.tumblr.com

Really, what is it that makes the Wii U hard to develop for current gen support? I've heard so little about it that it makes me wonder why two-three users keep bringing it up, Wii U cannot be as archaic as the Cell in the PS3 and Saturn in general.

Rurouni720 wrote:Really, what is it that makes the Wii U hard to develop for current gen support? I've heard so little about it that it makes me wonder why two-three users keep bringing it up, Wii U cannot be as archaic as the Cell in the PS3 and Saturn in general.

Is not archaic in the sense Wii was (literaly last gen). The thing is that the CPU is so slow that devs cannot use it like the have been for seven years, and it takes time and resources to rework the engines to take advantage of the beefier GPU (fan-favorite ShinEn has said as much, so it must be true right?). When it comes to next generation consoles, its a Wii-like situation again, different architecture and weaker at a lesser extent.

Rurouni720 wrote:Really, what is it that makes the Wii U hard to develop for current gen support? I've heard so little about it that it makes me wonder why two-three users keep bringing it up, Wii U cannot be as archaic as the Cell in the PS3 and Saturn in general.

Is not archaic in the sense Wii was (literaly last gen). The thing is that the CPU is so slow that devs cannot use it like the have been for seven years, and it takes time and resources to rework the engines to take advantage of the beefier GPU (fan-favorite ShinEn has said as much, so it must be true right?). When it comes to next generation consoles, its a Wii-like situation again, different architecture and weaker at a lesser extent.

It uses same old overclocked Wii CPU, times three cores. The GPU is a standard, and outdated Radeon core. Even a quad-core Cortex A9 beats it in scalar integer performance and SIMD.

That's funny "guy who just signed up to post this". Because people I've heard discuss it who actually seem to know what they're talking about, say the final verdict is that the CPU is underclocked, not overclocked, and not TERRIBLY impressive, but adaquate, and that the GPGPU is, in fact, fairly modern and powerful. Just not AS powerful as the ones that will be found in Xbone and PS4.

Also featured at: http://thepunkeffect.comFollow along on Twitter: @RetroRevelationAnd Tumblr: retrorevelations.tumblr.com

Rurouni720 wrote:Really, what is it that makes the Wii U hard to develop for current gen support? I've heard so little about it that it makes me wonder why two-three users keep bringing it up, Wii U cannot be as archaic as the Cell in the PS3 and Saturn in general.

Is not archaic in the sense Wii was (literaly last gen). The thing is that the CPU is so slow that devs cannot use it like the have been for seven years, and it takes time and resources to rework the engines to take advantage of the beefier GPU (fan-favorite ShinEn has said as much, so it must be true right?). When it comes to next generation consoles, its a Wii-like situation again, different architecture and weaker at a lesser extent.

Provide me a link to Shinen stating such, i read it before but I've missed out on some details.

Considering that the "slow CPU" comments came from developers working on non-final dev kits on the Wii U's hardware before launch release arrived, along with a single core of the CPU getting unlocked AFTER launch, you have to question if such problems are still significant in porting current gen games as of now unless it the culprit could be poor documents and late dev kits (aside from the different architecture). Since the Wii U is getting zilch of cross gen ports currently, it's almost hard to conclude which third party multiplat is actually taking advantage of the Wii U's internals. Besides, even before launch Sumo Digital didn't have a problem with optimizing their engine for Wii U and has corrected a couple of claims about an old Wii U build of SASRT having framerate issues because of the CPU (which in fact wasn't the case, as it was exactly an old build after all, since Sumo seemed had little problems with the Wii U's CPU even when a single core freaking was locked!).

ddddd wrote:Is not archaic in the sense Wii was (literaly last gen). The thing is that the CPU is so slow that devs cannot use it like the have been for seven years, and it takes time and resources to rework the engines to take advantage of the beefier GPU (fan-favorite ShinEn has said as much, so it must be true right?). When it comes to next generation consoles, its a Wii-like situation again, different architecture and weaker at a lesser extent.

Provide me a link to Shinen stating such, i read it before but I've missed out on some details.

“The Wii U GPU is several generations ahead of the current gen. It allows many things that were not possible on consoles before. If you develop for Wii U you have to take advantage of these possibilities, otherwise your performance is of course limited. Also your engine layout needs to be different. You need to take advantage of the large shared memory of the Wii U, the huge and very fast EDRAM section and the big CPU caches in the cores. Especially the workings of the CPU caches are very important to master. Otherwise you can lose a magnitude of power for cache relevant parts of your code. In the end the Wii U specs fit perfectly together and make a very efficient console when used right.”

Now really, its a more friendly way to say that you can't do Wii U development like one can with current gen. This is a developer that subsists only from Nintendo development, imagine what that comment would look like from someone that doesn't care about Nintendo platforms.

With the blame to power on the Wii being so apoarent, most developers will use the same excuse again this time around with fancier words to get people to stay on the hate-ball against the Wii namesake. Though yes, the power is weaker by default, but hardly the gap many place it in. It is more comparable to the PS2-to-Xbox gap in power than Wii-to-360. It's noticeable, by far not negligible.

Which baffles me still to this day; The PS2 triumphed with inferior power, developers didn't care much. Then stated the GCN was weak in the installment base. The Wii rolls into port and takes sales by storm, now... NOW, it's about your tech-ego and what your individual arm hairs can do.

ddddd wrote:PS2 wasnt a generation behind XBox, and more importantly, it apealed to the audience third party devs were and still are aiming at.

Wii U isn't "a generation behind" PS4/Xbone either. And people's attempts to make such claims are nothing but fanboyish ignorance. Beyond that, raw polygon numbers and system ram size do not dictate what is "next gen" when it comes to consoles. "Next gen" means nothing more or less than quite literally "next generation console", as in the next generation console past the previous one. PS2 was the same gen as Xbox. Wii U is in that case, and in all cases, now "next" or soon to be "current gen".

Also featured at: http://thepunkeffect.comFollow along on Twitter: @RetroRevelationAnd Tumblr: retrorevelations.tumblr.com

ddddd wrote:PS2 wasnt a generation behind XBox, and more importantly, it apealed to the audience third party devs were and still are aiming at.

Wii U isn't "a generation behind" PS4/Xbone either. And people's attempts to make such claims are nothing but fanboyish ignorance. Beyond that, raw polygon numbers and system ram size do not dictate what is "next gen" when it comes to consoles. "Next gen" means nothing more or less than quite literally "next generation console", as in the next generation console past the previous one. PS2 was the same gen as Xbox. Wii U is in that case, and in all cases, now "next" or soon to be "current gen".

I was talking about the Wii, which was literaly buffed up GCN, last generation tech, hardware. Since it wasn't the lead development platform, with a different primary audience, and a tech gap much higher than usual, it shouldn't be a surpprise why things turned out this way.

Im not sure how the large difference in number and type of components, a computational power with a gap bigger than DC to Wii, or a different architecture wouldn't be enough to differentiate a WiiU from a PS4 even if by the dictionary deffinition they are in the same "generation". A significant power upgrade from previous generation of machines was always a part of a "next generation" console. Only Nintendo tries to not follow up since Wii, of course plenty of people (gamers, journalists, developers) are not going to accept the broader definition.

Berrix wrote:With the blame to power on the Wii being so apoarent, most developers will use the same excuse again this time around with fancier words to get people to stay on the hate-ball against the Wii namesake. Though yes, the power is weaker by default, but hardly the gap many place it in. It is more comparable to the PS2-to-Xbox gap in power than Wii-to-360. It's noticeable, by far not negligible.

Which baffles me still to this day; The PS2 triumphed with inferior power, developers didn't care much. Then stated the GCN was weak in the installment base. The Wii rolls into port and takes sales by storm, now... NOW, it's about your tech-ego and what your individual arm hairs can do.

What the hell happened to the industry within that timeframe?

I really don't know; I want to say it's due to a shift towards Western companies being a far prominent force in the industry. I've noticed that Western companies seem to try and push "power" FAR more than their Eastern counterparts. Though of course like all idiots given limitless potential they then proceed to piss it away and waste millions on stuff that isn't THAT much more complex than what we had the gen before. I think a lot of devs whine about power just because they know if they have to work on something with less power then they have to actually THINK laterally which is a skillset they have let atrophy for the past generation. Ask the current crop of talent to think outside the box and all you'll get is a bunch of manchildren suffering panic attacks.

Devil_Rising wrote:I was talking about the Wii, which was literaly buffed up GCN, last generation tech, hardware. Since it wasn't the lead development platform, with a different primary audience, and a tech gap much higher than usual, it shouldn't be a surpprise why things turned out this way.

Im not sure how the large difference in number and type of components, a computational power with a gap bigger than DC to Wii, or a different architecture wouldn't be enough to differentiate a WiiU from a PS4 even if by the dictionary deffinition they are in the same "generation". A significant power upgrade from previous generation of machines was always a part of a "next generation" console. Only Nintendo tries to not follow up since Wii, of course plenty of people (gamers, journalists, developers) are not going to accept the broader definition.

I think the Wii was more than just a buffed up GC. It wasn't all THAT powerful, but I also don't think the GC could have handled, for example, Mario Galaxy. But that's besides the point. I drop by at the VGChartz forums from time to time, where people tend to have tech-nerd arguments in there frequently. But while many do sit and try to say Wii U isn't "next gen", there was more than one person in there with a calmer head who seemed to actually know what they were talking about, that pointed out various reasons why it was. The best of those, was chap I was talking to who confirmed that the actual, functional gap between Wii U hardware and PS4 hardware isn't as big as the gap between Wii and PS3 was, at all. He said that the difference is that with Wii U, it's more akin to building the same game but scaling down the graphics settings, like a PC game, versus with the Wii, where they would have to often basically make a completely different build for Wii. It isn't as big of a "down-porting" issue with Wii U, as Wii U runs most of the new engines (including Frostbite 3, despite what some have claimed).

And besides, considering that the truth of the matter actually turns out that the Xbox One is realistically somewhere in between PS4 and Wii U in terms of actual power available to games, scalability is what this coming gen is going to be all about. So developing for PS4 and XboxOne, it's only a smaller step to also make that same game for Wii U. It's all a matter of developers/publishers actually wanting to bother doing that.

But in every way that counts, Wii U is "next gen", and compared to 360 and PS3 hardware, it's hardware is, CPU aside, significantly more advanced and modern. It will be able to not only do things better than, say, PS3 would struggle to do, but it will also eventually prove to be able to do things the PS3 simply couldn't, mainly because of the RAM size and GPGPU. In general, PS4's vaunted power, similar in some ways to PS3 at least so far as 3rd party devs are concerned, will be wasted, as a lot of multi-plat games will likely use the Xbone as the "lead platform" again, not PS3. So considering that even, Wii U has an even better chance of being able to get/run games the other consoles can.

And don't forget, at the end of the day, raw horsepower means nothing if you suck at developing/designing/programming. The best art direction and programming talent in the world can do wonders with "limited" hardware, while lazy (yes, lazy) and uninspired/uncreative developers can have all the power in the world to work with and still put out a product that is little more than very pretty looking garbage.

Last edited by Devil_Rising on 03 Jul 2013 01:48, edited 1 time in total.

Also featured at: http://thepunkeffect.comFollow along on Twitter: @RetroRevelationAnd Tumblr: retrorevelations.tumblr.com

Devil_Rising wrote:I was talking about the Wii, which was literaly buffed up GCN, last generation tech, hardware. Since it wasn't the lead development platform, with a different primary audience, and a tech gap much higher than usual, it shouldn't be a surpprise why things turned out this way.

Im not sure how the large difference in number and type of components, a computational power with a gap bigger than DC to Wii, or a different architecture wouldn't be enough to differentiate a WiiU from a PS4 even if by the dictionary deffinition they are in the same "generation". A significant power upgrade from previous generation of machines was always a part of a "next generation" console. Only Nintendo tries to not follow up since Wii, of course plenty of people (gamers, journalists, developers) are not going to accept the broader definition.

I think the GC was more than just a buffed up GC.

lies. the GC was on par with the GC. it was in no way more powerful than the GC.

Power only matters when developers have nothing new to make. Power only matters when they want to drive up costs from graphics and effects rather than making a good game. Something a lot of developers nowadays excel at. People who think Nintendo can survive making consoles more powerful or as powerful as the ones Sony and Microsoft put out are simply wrong. They don't have the money or resources to do it, period. It didn't work in the past and won't work in the future unless they become just as big and uncoordinated as Microsoft and Sony.

You want to know Wii U's problems? Here: Shigeru Miyamoto. It is HIS JOB to understand the upcoming development projects and how big/complicated they will be for teams at Nintendo to undertake. If he sees the need to bring in more people, it is his responsibility to start putting Help Wanted ads in the Japanese Newspapers. But like 3DS, he didn't.. Why? Because simply put, he's a poor manager. He's a guy who thinks Steel Diver, a 3-hour game with no heart, effort or soul is worth full price. That's the type of guy running the game development management at Nintendo right now, and it's a problem. He should've known that games would've taken more manpower to make on Wii U than on Wii, because it happened on NES>SNES, SNES>N64 and N64>GC, but didn't because he wasn't in that position of power the last time.

Face it people, Shigeru Miyamoto, as much as we all like him and his games, needs to go. He is holding Nintendo back in a number of ways, and I've only described one of them.

I would not say Miyamoto is "holding Nintendo back" at all, and he certainly doesn't "need to go". That may be your opinion, but pardon me for saying so, I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. He's not the ONLY one responsible/in charge of all the development teams at Nintendo. There is Iwata and other higher-ups also responsible. You're correct that Nintendo in general should have been aware of the fact that they need more development teams, but that doesn't all fall on Miyamoto's lap. He does indeed oversee most in-house Nintendo projects, and some outside projects, but he's not the be-all end all, nor is he the only one answerable for their mis-management of development within the last year.

Don't get me wrong, they fucked up. There is really no good excuse for not having a single Nintendo title put out for about 6 months (Dec.-May) on your brand new console. They published Lego City, and that's great, but as I've said many times myself, they OVER-focused on 3DS, and put games such as Luigi's Mansion and Paper Mario 4 on it when they should have been Wii U titles. Those two games alone could have really helped ease the tension and kept some of the launch momentum going through those first months of 2013. Instead, the system literally had almost nothing come out in Jan. or Feb., had a brief spurt of games in March, maybe one or two in April and May, but otherwise, dry desert.

But that doesn't ALL lay on Miyamoto's lap. Not hardly.

Also featured at: http://thepunkeffect.comFollow along on Twitter: @RetroRevelationAnd Tumblr: retrorevelations.tumblr.com

Miyamoto is probably the second in "command" over NCL, no doubt plenty of decisions pass through him, and things like not allowing the inclusion of a second slide pad shows that he has plenty of power, missguided sometimes if I may say so.Im really baffled investors only dropped their aproval ratings on Iwata alone rather than the directcive board as a whole, then again they never make good questions...

KingBroly wrote:Power only matters when developers have nothing new to make. Power only matters when they want to drive up costs from graphics and effects rather than making a good game. Something a lot of developers nowadays excel at. People who think Nintendo can survive making consoles more powerful or as powerful as the ones Sony and Microsoft put out are simply wrong. They don't have the money or resources to do it, period. It didn't work in the past and won't work in the future unless they become just as big and uncoordinated as Microsoft and Sony.

You want to know Wii U's problems? Here: Shigeru Miyamoto. It is HIS JOB to understand the upcoming development projects and how big/complicated they will be for teams at Nintendo to undertake. If he sees the need to bring in more people, it is his responsibility to start putting Help Wanted ads in the Japanese Newspapers. But like 3DS, he didn't.. Why? Because simply put, he's a poor manager. He's a guy who thinks Steel Diver, a 3-hour game with no heart, effort or soul is worth full price. That's the type of guy running the game development management at Nintendo right now, and it's a problem. He should've known that games would've taken more manpower to make on Wii U than on Wii, because it happened on NES>SNES, SNES>N64 and N64>GC, but didn't because he wasn't in that position of power the last time.

Face it people, Shigeru Miyamoto, as much as we all like him and his games, needs to go. He is holding Nintendo back in a number of ways, and I've only described one of them.

Do...do you even KNOW what Miyamoto does in the company? He's highly respected, sure, but he doesn't oversee EVERY development team because that's just not possible when you get down it. Fact of the matter is this: the current management situation was more complicated than you like to admit and laying it all on Miyamoto is a patronizingly simplistic way to place blame. It's like how people try to lay all the problems Other M had on Sakamoto despite the fact that games are so complicated now that problems are usually the fault of several factors. Get your stories straight

I'll just say though Sakamoto controlled all areas of OM's development. He didn't allow Team Ninja much flexibility and all the in-game problems as a result can all be pointed at Sakamoto.

Miyamoto, while he has sway in developments at Nintendo, isn't restrictive to the point Sakamoto was at that one time. Miyamoto's only fault is he's not big on plots as he prefers gameplay take priority over stories (this backfired with Paper Mario: Sticker Star).

There are times other members at Nintendo overrule Miyamoto especially since we got Super Mario Galaxy 1 as is with the deeper backstory of Rosalina intact instead of there just being the sole, usual excuse plot of Bowser kidnaps Peach, go save her. And to be recent, there's Mario and Luigi: Dream Team that's not looking bare on plot either.

KingBroly wrote:Power only matters when developers have nothing new to make. Power only matters when they want to drive up costs from graphics and effects rather than making a good game. Something a lot of developers nowadays excel at. People who think Nintendo can survive making consoles more powerful or as powerful as the ones Sony and Microsoft put out are simply wrong. They don't have the money or resources to do it, period. It didn't work in the past and won't work in the future unless they become just as big and uncoordinated as Microsoft and Sony.

You want to know Wii U's problems? Here: Shigeru Miyamoto. It is HIS JOB to understand the upcoming development projects and how big/complicated they will be for teams at Nintendo to undertake. If he sees the need to bring in more people, it is his responsibility to start putting Help Wanted ads in the Japanese Newspapers. But like 3DS, he didn't.. Why? Because simply put, he's a poor manager. He's a guy who thinks Steel Diver, a 3-hour game with no heart, effort or soul is worth full price. That's the type of guy running the game development management at Nintendo right now, and it's a problem. He should've known that games would've taken more manpower to make on Wii U than on Wii, because it happened on NES>SNES, SNES>N64 and N64>GC, but didn't because he wasn't in that position of power the last time.

Face it people, Shigeru Miyamoto, as much as we all like him and his games, needs to go. He is holding Nintendo back in a number of ways, and I've only described one of them.

Do...do you even KNOW what Miyamoto does in the company? He's highly respected, sure, but he doesn't oversee EVERY development team because that's just not possible when you get down it. Fact of the matter is this: the current management situation was more complicated than you like to admit and laying it all on Miyamoto is a patronizingly simplistic way to place blame. It's like how people try to lay all the problems Other M had on Sakamoto despite the fact that games are so complicated now that problems are usually the fault of several factors. Get your stories straight

He is/was the managing director of game development at EAD, meaning he has say so over what games are being made, and whether or not more people are needed to be hired. The fact of the matter is he didn't foresee any major problems with HD development than what was on Wii until they had to shift people from Pikmin 3 over to NSMB/Nintendoland. That is 100% his fault, not only on a small level, but on a system-wide level as well.

Ngamer01 wrote:I'll just say though Sakamoto controlled all areas of OM's development. He didn't allow Team Ninja much flexibility and all the in-game problems as a result can all be pointed at Sakamoto.

There's never been any confirmation of that besides Hayashi saying "Sakamoto insisted that we only use the Wii-mote." That's it and usually when people TRY to find more stuff to vilify Sakamoto they usually cite unverified info off Tv Tropes or forums. It's insultingly simplistic and really shows that people HATE having to acknowledge other sides or bring in information that makes things more complex because it gets in the way of their theses.

It's the same thing with Miyamoto; people like to think he's he end-all be-all and everything he produces HAS to be approved by him. Not true. It's like saying everything by Square from 1990-2000 was handcrafted by Sakaguchi or that Yoshinori Ono is the mastermind behind everything at CAPCOM. It's easy to WANT to think that, mostly because acknowledging that companies are extremely complex, multi-faceted entities gets in the way of scapegoating. People want a nice, comforting face to lay ALL the blame on despite the fact that either A) several people are to blame or B) no one is to blame, but sometimes circumstances just make things turn out wonky. It's something gamers need to get over because this fundamentalist view is really not doing anything other than making gamers look really ignorant.

KingBroly wrote:He is/was the managing director of game development at EAD, meaning he has say so over what games are being made, and whether or not more people are needed to be hired. The fact of the matter is he didn't foresee any major problems with HD development than what was on Wii until they had to shift people from Pikmin 3 over to NSMB/Nintendoland. That is 100% his fault, not only on a small level, but on a system-wide level as well.

Again, you're oversimplifying things again. Yeah, Miyamoto is the general manager...BUT THERE ARE TEN TEAMS IN THE EAD. There's no way he could oversee that much; heck, actually there are THREE managers in EAD with Takashi Tezuka and Takao Sawano. And that's before you get into the fact that EAD is only ONE division in Nintendo. There's also SPD (Sakamoto's division), SDD, IRD, NNS, SRD, NBD, NST, NTD, NNB, and that's BEFORE you get into 1-UP, Hal, Intelligent Systems, etc. It's a veritable alphabet soup of development teams. Not even Miyamoto can manage EAD alone, it's just too much to ask for one man. So, NO, Miyamoto is not the end-all, be-all of what you THINK the problems are. It's always going to be a more complicated issue than that.